DE LIMA v GUERRERO (Reg Versoza)
The determination of probable cause and motion to quash on the ground
G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017
DISSENTING OPINION
JARDELEZA, J
SUMMARY: J. Jardeleza argues that while the power to issue arrest warrants is separate
and distinct from the power to hear and decide a case (recall Malaloan ), the 2000 Rules
make it impossible for the court to proceed to arraignment and trial if it has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged. The court having no jurisdiction over the offense, orders the
arrest of the accused PRIOR to resolving WON it has jurisdiction, PROLONGS the
disposition of the case. J. Jardeleza view this delay as incompatible with due process
and the right to speedy disposition of cases. The delay and concomitant prejudice to the
accused is avoidable and would serve no other purpose than to restrain the liberty of the
accused for a period longer than necessary.
I. There is no stand-alone right that criminal jurisdiction be determined
prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution does not textually prescribe such procedure;
2. Such statement would not have been universally true, dependent as
it is upon prevailing procedural rules.
3. Since the power to issue a warrant of arrest is conferred by
substantive law, such as the Constitution and the Judiciary
Reorganization Act, its issuance by a court upon which such authority
is vested but having no jurisdiction over offense charged cannot be
peremptorily be declared as void for being ultra vires. The power to
issue arrest warrants is separate and distinct power to hear, try and
decide a case. The power to issue an arrest warrant may exist
independently of the power to hear and decide a case and that the judge
issuing the warrant need not be the same judge who will hear and
decide the case.
 For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely
constitutes process. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order
in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
and bring it before the court. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal
process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in
its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity. (recall Malaloan)
However, the issuance of the warrant may be annulled if it contravenes the
Rules because that would result in a violation of the accused's due process
rights.
II.
of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charge should be made
simultaneously within the 10-day period in accordance with Rule 112 Sec
5(a) in order to prevent undue delay in accordance with the right of the
accused to due process.
 The 2000 Rules is structured in such a way that the court that issues the arrest
warrant is the same court that hears the case.
Under Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules, the judge is required to "personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence" within 10 days from the filing of
the information.
After his personal determination of probable cause, the judge has three options:
(a) to immediately dismiss the case for lack of probable cause;
(b) if he finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest or commitment order; or
(c) in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, he may order the
prosecution to present additional evidence.
 While the Rules do not mention dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in Rule 112, it
may be raised as a ground for the quashal of the information under Rule 117.
The Rules are silent as to which matter the court should resolve first.
But the silence is ambiguous; in analyzing the process due the accused in these
instances, it becomes necessary to balance the societal interests and the rights
of the accused.
 On the narrow ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged,
however, the balance tilts in favor of the accused. The 2000 Rules is
structured in such a way that the court that issues the arrest
warrant is the same court that hears the case.
Upon filing of the information, the court is authorized by the Rules to exercise all powers
relevant to the criminal case which include the issuance of arrest warrants, quashal of
search warrants, and, of course action proper, from arraignment to judgment. Because the
existing procedure has consolidated the various facets of criminal procedure in a single
court, the exercise of these powers have become procedurally tied to jurisdiction over the
offense charged. Hence, while it is pointed out that the power to issue arrest warrants is
separate and distinct from the power to hear and decide a case, the Rules make it
impossible for the court to proceed to arraignment and trial if it has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
 When a court without jurisdiction over the offense orders the arrest of the
accused prior to resolving the issue of jurisdiction,it necessarily prolongs
the disposition of the case.
In practical terms, the determination of probable cause and resolution of the motion to
quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged should be made by
the judge simultaneously within the 10-day period prescribed by Rule 112,
Section 5(a). In resolving the question of jurisdiction, the judge only needs to consider
the allegations on the face of the information and may proceed ex parte.